Defining Islamophobia A Policy Exchange Research Note Sir John Jenkins KCMG LVO Foreword by Trevor Phillips OBE 2 – Defining Islamophobia About the Author Sir John Jenkins spent a 35-year career in the British Diplomatic Service. He holds a BA (Double First Class Honours) and a Ph.D from Jesus College, Cambridge. He also studied at The School of Oriental and African Studies in London (Arabic and Burmese) and through the FCO with the London and Ashridge Business Schools. He is an alumnus of the Salzburg Seminar. He joined the FCO in 1980 and served in Abu Dhabi (1983-86), Malaysia (1989-92) and Kuwait (1995-98) before being appointed Ambassador to Burma (1999- 2002). He was subsequently HM Consul-General, Jerusalem (2003-06), Ambassador to Syria (2006-07), FCO Director for the Middle East and North Africa (2007-09), Ambassador to Iraq (2009-11), Special Representative to the National Transitional Council and subsequently Ambassador to Libya (2011) and Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (2012-2015). He took an active part in Sir John Chilcott’s Iraq Inquiry and was asked by the Prime Minister in March 2014 to lead a Policy Review into the Muslim Brotherhood. Until his departure from the FCO he was the government’s senior diplomatic Arabist. Trevor Phillips OBE is a writer, broadcaster and businessman. He is the Chairman of Index on Censorship, the international campaign group for freedom of expression, and was chair of both the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Runnymede Trust. Policy Exchange Policy Exchange is the UK’s leading think tank. We are an independent, non-partisan educational charity whose mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas that will deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy. Policy Exchange is committed to an evidence-based approach to policy development and retains copyright and full editorial control over all its written research. We work in partnership with academics and other experts and commission major studies involving thorough empirical research of alternative policy outcomes. We believe that the policy experience of other countries offers important lessons for government in the UK. We also believe that government has much to learn from business and the voluntary sector. Registered charity no: 1096300. Trustees Diana Berry, Pamela Dow, Alexander Downer, Andrew Feldman, Candida Gertler, Patricia Hodgson, Greta Jones, Edward Lee, Charlotte Metcalf, Roger Orf, Andrew Roberts, George Robinson, Robert Rosenkranz, Peter Wall, Nigel Wright. Defining Islamophobia – 3 Contents Foreword by Trevor Phillips ............................................................................................. 5 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 8 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 8 A Vague and Impractical Definition ................................................................................ 9 A Balanced Portrayal of Modern Britain? .................................................................... 10 Dangers to Free Speech and Media Freedom ............................................................ 12 ‘Muslimness’ and Islamism .............................................................................................. 14 Dissenting Voices ............................................................................................................. 16 Due Diligence .................................................................................................................... 17 The MEND connection ................................................................................................ 18 Conclusion: The Key Questions ..................................................................................... 19 1. What due diligence was carried out on those who wrote or contributed to the APPG’s report? ....................................................................................................... 19 2. How would the APPG’s Islamophobia definition affect the freedom of the media? ............................................................................................................................. 19 3. How would the definition affect the Government’s Counter-Terrorism Policy? ............................................................................................................................. 20 4. Would it enable an Islamist agenda? .................................................................... 20 Endnotes ............................................................................................................................. 21 4 – Defining Islamophobia Foreword by Trevor Phillips What exactly is “Islamophobia”? In 1997, when I was chair of the Runnymede Trust, we published the report that introduced the word into Britain’s political lexicon. It encompassed the overt, covert and sometimes unwittingly unfavourable treatment of people from a Muslim background. At the time, we were naturally worried about specific individual acts of rudeness and hostility, which seemed to be intensifying. But the research for that report also pointed to broader concerns including the social and economic exclusion to which British Muslims were subject then and now. In fact, I came to believe that, as heinous as some of the physical attacks on Muslim families and businesses were, it was the wider, and often subtler effects of social exclusion and segregation that would have the greatest impact on the lives of British Muslims. In many ways, our findings mirrored the experience of several immigrant groups, including the Windrush generation to which my own parents belonged. It seemed obvious that Muslims would deserve similar legal and political protection provided to us by race relations laws. Yet, when we finalised the Runnymede report in 1997, we specifically rejected the notion that Muslims should be characterised as a racial grouping; in fact we sought a very different set of legal and policy solutions, for three compelling reasons. First, Muslims themselves rejected the idea that they constitute anything like a single separate “race” in the way that, say, black Africans might. In fact, it is a central tenet of Islam that all who submit to the faith are equal in the eyes of God irrespective of origin, ethnicity or geography. Possibly the most famous converts of our time, Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali, both celebrated their membership of a pan-racial global faith community as a liberation from a purely racial identity. Second, the UK itself is home to a uniquely wide range of Muslim communities. They differ in origin, with sizeable contingents with roots in the Indian sub- continent, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, Central and South-Eastern Asia, and Europe itself. And third, the facts of race are, in essence, not a matter of personal choice; we cannot simply declare ourselves to be white, black or Asian when our families and friends know that we are not. On the other hand, most of those who follow the faith of Islam rightly pride themselves on the fact that they have actively chosen to adhere to a centuries old belief system. Defining Islamophobia – 5 It is therefore all the more puzzling that the All Party Parliamentary Group should call for the government to adopt a definition of Islamophobia as “rooted in racism” and “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness” – a definition of Islamophobia which, in their own words, “racialises” Islam. Yet their report even quotes the distinguished Professor Tariq Modood condemning such racialisation as a “specific process” that characterises Islamophobia. Unfortunately, the APPG’s confused report Islamophobia Defined demonstrates that its authors appear to understand neither the concept of racism nor the meaning of Islamophobia. As Policy Exchange’s Research Note explains, despite the undoubted good intentions of MPs on the committee, the adoption of this definition would be a grave mistake, undoing much of the good work to integrate Muslim communities during the past quarter century or so. The MPs who have put their names to this report have proud records of concern for the needs of minorities. But I fear that they have been persuaded to recommend a course that far from supporting the integration of British Muslims will isolate them and make them the object of continuing hostility. My biggest concern is that instead of protecting Muslims, defining Islamophobia as the APPG does – as anti-Muslim racism – will actually make life harder for them. To define Islamophobia as “anti-Muslim” racism means, in effect, that all Muslims should be treated exactly as others are. Tackling Muslim disadvantage demands different treatment for those who declare themselves to be Muslims – with prayer rooms, holiday arrangements and so on. Combating racial disadvantage necessitates the opposite, ensuring that people are treated similarly irrespective of their ethnicity. Thus, under the APPG’s definition, the average employer would have every right to say to a Muslim employee, “I’m sorry, we do not differentiate by race in this workplace. We don’t give anyone else special breaks to go to the prayer room – I just can’t treat you as a special case.” Today, many schools allow uniform variations that permit the wearing of headscarves, but not full-face veils; would the prohibition of